ASA Ruling on
Fastbidding Ltd
t/a Token Bidder

Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website for Token Bidder, www.fastbidding.co.uk, a pay-per-bid auction site, seen in August 2016, promoted various auctions. The home page included a box headed "Latest Winners", which contained an image of some bank notes and text which stated "10 Pounds Cash + 200 Token Credits ... RRP: £30.00 - End Price: £0.01".

Issue

2. the end prices shown for sold auction items were misleading, because they did not include delivery and bidding costs.

Response

1. & 2. Token Bidder said the cost of bids was variable and that they therefore had not taken it into account in their "End" prices. They said they were willing to amend their ads to no longer include references to RRP and to make clear that prices excluded delivery and the cost of bids.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA welcomed Token Bidder's willingness to amend their future advertising. We considered consumers would understand the quoted RRPs to represent the prices at which the products were generally sold by other retailers. In the absence of any substantiation demonstrating that the stated RRPs represented the prices at which the relevant products were generally sold, we concluded that the savings claims were likely to mislead.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.13.1Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.73.7Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.173.17Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.403.40Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).

2. Upheld

We noted that, for each of the products, the ad gave a higher "RRP" figure and an "End" price, but made no mention of other charges. We considered consumers would interpret the "End" price as representing the total amount a successful bidder had paid to secure the item in question, and that they would interpret the difference between the prices as representing the saving they were likely to obtain if purchasing that item, or similar, in future. In the absence of any text to the contrary, we also considered consumers would not anticipate that any additional charge for delivery applied.

We welcomed the action Token Bidder had taken and we understood their point that they had not taken account of the cost of bids because that cost varied. However, as the examples related to auctions which had closed, we considered it was possible for Token Bidder to calculate what the cost of bidding had been and to incorporate it into the "End" price, and to make consumers aware of the cost of delivery by, for example, stating it prominently alongside the "End" price.

Because we considered consumers would understand from the ad that the "End" prices reflected the full amount paid for the items by the successful bidders, but bidding fees were not included and the cost of postage was not stated, we concluded that the "End" prices were likely to mislead.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.13.1Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.173.17Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product featured in the marketing communication. (Prices) and 3.403.40Price comparisons must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail prices (RRPs) are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold. (Price comparisons).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Token Bidder to ensure they held adequate substantiation for price savings claims made against RRPs in future and to ensure that they did not state or imply that their "End" prices included all fees paid by the auction winner, unless that was the case.